Battle of Britain Hurricane or Wildcat

Wildcat or Hurricane

  • Total voters
    50

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

The Martlet I used commercial Wright cyclone engines with 2 speed-single stage superchargers.
this engine offered 1000hp at 13500ft. performance dropping the higher it went.

The American F4F-3 (and only some of them) got the 2 speed-2 stage R-1830s which offered 1000hp at 19,000ft (several thousand ft more than the Hurricanes Merlin III) and offers the better altitude performance.

Some American F4F-3 and Martlet IIs IIIs got 2 speed-single stage supercharged R-1830s which gave 1000hp at 14,500ft. Altitude performance will be worse than the Hurricane.

So you have basically two different Wildcats to deal with, the single stage models and the two stage model.(I am not going to get too excited about the difference between the Cyclone and twin wasp single stage, the extra 1000ft of critical altitude may be part matched by the lighter weight of the Cyclone)

Royal Navy may have gotten it's first Martlet in July but it took until Oct 31 to get all 81 delivered.

While the take-off performance of the two might not be enough to worry about the Wildcat didn't have the best of ground handling.

Considering the numbers needed 6 months head start over historical isn't anywhere near enough. With a total of 1900 Wildcats built by the end of 1942 closer to a two year head start over historical would be needed to replace the Hurricane in like numbers.
 

I found this site, which details the loss for about 1/2 of all Hurricanes lost, and gives the total losses during the Battle of France, by squadron:
World War 2 - RAF May 1940


I had to go through each Hurricane squadron and count the losses and they come out to:

216 total, of which:

54.5 by Me-109

33 by bomber defensive fire

20.5 by Me-110

2 x ground fire
------------
110 stated

106 unstated.
----------
216 total


so extrapolating the stated losses we get about:

110 by Me-109
66 by BDF
41 x Me-110
4 x GF

but of course many of these unaccunted for losses may have been due to other factors such as simple pilot error. Some of the Me110 losses may have been from the Me-110 rear gunner.

I may have made some errors in my counts, but the above numbers should be close.
 
Last edited:

find a good site thanks

but you can't extrapolating the unstated from the stated the stated sample it's not statistical (or you can extrapolating but the results aren't scientific).
 
Slaterat wrote:
Other essential factors to wining the BoB where the Hurricane was superior to the wildcat include:
-repair of battle damage aircraft
Click to expand...

Flyboy wrote:
Flyboy, it would appear that you are unfamiliar with the type of tubular construction used on the Hurricane. This is a common mistake I've read on many websites and books. The load bearing structure of the Hurricane didnot employ any welding or use of low quality mild steel that could be welded.

Sydney Camm and Hawker had a mistrust of welding preferring to use mechanical fasteners to assemble the tubular frame of the Hurricane. This had multiple advantages , it allowed for the use of lighter and stronger materials , including high tensile heat treated steel and aluminum tube, while making the airframe both stronger, lighter and much easier to repair.

Slaterat
 

Then with that said, you're still disassembling primary structure, removing fabric and formers and possibly control surface rigging, still not a great advantage when compared to aluminum structures when you can cut and spice structure and many times a "standard repair" is already developed for damage scenarios. And I'd bet dollars to donuts than when damaged components are removed, they are repaired - by welding which was the standard practice of the day for that type of material.
 
WOW - I'm amazed at the number of posts on this topic. I've read through most - though not all!

As others have posted, the idea of the comparison seems lopsided i.e. comparing the Hurricane 1 with a later model Wildcat, rather than one of that time.
Secondly the armament arguement seems to allow this 'alternative' RAF Wildcat to have 0.5" machine guns, when in such circumstances - this is not believeable IMHO. Yet, the idea of the Hurricane having such weapons doesn't seem to have been considered!! The Belgians were going to equipe their locally made Hurricanes with 12.65 mm machine guns.
So no I don't see it as 'plausible' to have the Wildcat F4F-3 in place of the Hurricane 1 = ASB

However, if the British Purchasing Commision had got the 'finger out' when Gruman offered the F4F for export, they may have got their order(rather than no order at all) in before the French Greeks. So either, the FAA could have had the aircraft in service earlier for them to have Squadrons based in the south e.g. Yeovil (under RAF direction) to participate in the BoB; or the RAF may have enough aircraft to equipe a Squadron or two as well.
 
Interesting point.
 

looking in the site i understand that it is focused on men, and also if for many squadrons there are more data, give info on (fatal) losses on men not on planes. so the count of hurricane loss it's not complete
 

If they had got the 'finger out' There are still several questions.

1. could Grumann really have moved up the delivery dates by very much?
Placing the order is one thing, tooling up the factory and making deliveries is another. US Navy places an order for just 54 planes Aug 8 1939, France orders 100 planes Oct 1939. First US production planes flies Feb 1940 and First French plane test flies May 11th 1940. Grumann manufactures just over 200 F4Fs in 1940?

2. Which engine do the British get?
The standard export Cyclone with it's critical altitude of 13,500ft or the high tech 2 stage P&W engine (which the US government may not have allowed to be exported in 1939/early 1940) which is the engine that gives the biggest performance advantage. It also is the engine that gave the most trouble in development.

A few squadrons in service at the start of the BoB may have been possible though.
 
I have read that the Hurricane was much more easily repaired than the Spitfire because much of the airplane was wood and fabric and that wood workers in England were more numerous than workers familiar with the mostly metal construction of the Spitfire. As for the Sea Hurricane, Eric Brown states that the Wildcat was faster and more maneuverable and was more powerfully armed. The Sea Hurricane had a Vmax, according to Brown, of 300 mph and a service ceiling of only 30000 feet compared to 35000 feet for the standard Hurricane and 37000 feet for the F4F3. Taking a fighter designed only for land based operation and converting it for carrier use caused large penalties in performance.
 
From what I seen on the Hurricane (al least ones with metal wings), the only wood on the aircraft were the formers that made up the "turtleback" and the stringers accross the fuselage. Normally if any of each is damaged you just replace it. I don't know if repalcements came pre-varnished, so that would have to be applied as well. I can't see any mechanic in a war setting making repairs to stringers and formers unless they were not available.

Fabric work is not really difficult but more tedious and depending on the size of the repair, you would need enviornmental controls when applying dope. High humidity and cold is not good for fabric work as the doped surfaces can develope conditions known as "blushing" and pinholes, especially with the fabrics used in the 1940s (Irish Linen and grade 'a' cotton).

There were two types of dopes used, nitrate and butyrate, with the latter being superior. For the most part you want temps. between 65 -75F and humidity between 20 to 60%.
 
FLYBOYJ said:
For the most part you want temps. between 65 -75F and humidity between 20 to 60%.
Click to expand...

Those temps and humidity levels don't happen often in Blighty, even in the height (or lows) of summer. As for ventilation, health and safety ain't what it used to be.

I suspect groundcrews did what they could when and where they could do it. IIRC fabric patches were rapidly applied and coated with a red dope to fix them into place, much akin to the gun port covers applied to RAF fighters in the early stages of the war.
 
Patches are different - you could readily slap and patch on a small hole and apply ample amounts of dope on it to keep it in place. The conditions I described above could be present and not affect a small patch. It when you have to replace a large segment of fabric is where you'll have problems, and that will come if you have to replace or repair larger structural components, especially within the fuselage.
 
FB, the photo I saw of the Hurricane being restored confirms your observation. There was a tubular "backbone" inside, wasn't there? This was in a magazine, "Air and Space", I believe, and it had a long article comparing the Hurricane and Spitfire with a comparison of kills in the BOB and also a pre-war calculation by the RAF about how many 303 hits it took to bring down an enemy bomber. I think it was 179 but memory is probably faulty. Wish I had made a copy of the article.
 

Here's some good photos of a Hurricane restoration and what I'm talking about


 

Which version of Sea Hurricane are you talking about, and what altitude and boost levels does he state?
 
This was in Brown's book, "Duels in the Sky" and I am assuming that he meant the 300 mph was at critical altiude. He further stated that the Sea Hrricane had a range of 450 miles and that no Sea Hurricanes were built from scratch as such but were conversions of RAF builds., He also pointed out that when ditched at sea the results were lethal.

Thanks FB, that photo is similar to the one I saw in the magazine except that the restoration was further along.
 

The slowest Sea Hurricane would have been the Mk 1C which had 4 x 20mm cannon but retained the Merlin III engine. We can estimate its performance by looking at a MkIIC:

http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/hurricane/hurricane-IIc-raechart-level.jpg

and using 16lb boost (and 1440hp), it is very likely to be faster than an F4F-3 under 10,000 ft or so.

Lt RJ Cork was credited with 5 kills during Operation Pedestal while flying the Sea Hurricane IC.

The Sea Hurricane had poor ditching qualities but it was certainly not always fatal for the pilot.
 
I would not hold up Eric Brown as the final authority on anything although he flew almost all naval types, many of them in action. He seems to have had a strong bias against US aircraft but he seems to think that the Wildcat was much superior to the Sea Hurricane. I can certainly see that a fighter like the Hurricane, Spitfire or P51 would be very difficult to ditch at sea with those big scoops underneath. He also makes the statement that the Wildcat " was a great asset to the FAA, bringing it nearly to the level of the fighter opposition." He says the Wildcat II with the P&W engine had a Vmax of 328 mph at 19500 feet and 290 mph at SL and a range of 1150 miles. Sounds a lot better to me than the Sea Hurricane.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

Second best fighter of World War II
Replies
15
Views
2K
SaparotRob
  • Poll
F-15, F-16, F-18, F-22, or F-35
Replies
5
Views
2K
FLYBOYJ
  • Poll
Spitfire vs Hurricane
Replies
1
Views
2K
pbehn
P
  • Poll
Hurricane Mk1 vs 109E-6
Replies
2
Views
1K
Shortround6
S
  • Poll
Which was better
Replies
5
Views
1K
Supermarine-SpitfireMkXIV
Menu
Log in
Register